Funkyterrance wrote:The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

I was only using minimum wage as it's a mark that everyone can relate to. Let's just say low-income then if that is more satisfactory? Historically, low income individuals were generally able to cover their cost of living. Historically, meaning up until recently.Just like most macroeconomic issues, It's not something you are going to be able to nail down, you are going to have to use your better judgement and realize that it's just so.

Funkyterrance wrote:The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

I was only using minimum wage as it's a mark that everyone can relate to. Let's just say low-income then if that is more satisfactory? Historically, low income individuals were generally able to cover their cost of living. Historically, meaning up until recently.Just like most macroeconomic issues, It's not something you are going to be able to nail down, you are going to have to use your better judgement and realize that it's just so.

So it's just a shorthand way of saying that things were better in the past. It's a neat shortcut, I suppose. Carry on.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

patches70 wrote:You see, JB here is a true believer in the paradigm. Who needs critical thinking when you have a quasi-religious calling to promote class warfare instead of actually trying to look at the underlying foundation of what everything is built on. Namely, the currency system.

This is why nothing can ever get fixed, because the true believers worshiping in their church of social justice only believe what their preacher is preaching to them.

And this is also why when the current currency system finally collapses it will be replaced by an equally flawed system and the whole misery and strife will just start right back over again.

Well, I guess it keeps mankind consistent. It's not so much that history keeps repeating itself, it's more that human beings keep making the same stupid mistakes over and over again.

Oh well, I tried.

Best of luck solving the world's problems!

You attack anything specific about what I say and I will destroy your arguments with the wrath of an angry god and make you appear to be a drooling retard barely capable of clickety-clicking your keyboard into sentences that have structural form.

Funkyterrance wrote:The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

You guys are missing the point. NS's thread here appears to be attacking the poor, while totally ignoring the fact that we have CEO's in this country making $16,400K an hour. WTF? CEO compensation is up 726.7%!!!! The stock market is up. Corporate profit margins have never been higher. But wages as a percentage of GDP have never been lower. Businesses have been getting rich by taking away your money.

If you want to blame someone, why not blame the rich people who are pathologically hoarding so much cash that they are impoverishing everyone else? Or how about the politicians who's retarded views appear to mirror everyone else's in that the Wal*Mart babies are smart business people who deserve extra tax breaks while their workers make so little they are on the dole and forced to shop at Wal*mart. While CEO compensation rose by 727% between '78 and 2011, ours rose just 5.7%. They got all that extra money by not giving you your share. This elite class of citizens was not born to be your lords and ladies. Nobody was born spurred and nobody was born saddled. You want to blame the a system that spends $168 a day per poor person for why this country is fucked?Well, I'm going to point one finger at you and one finger at the guy who makes $16,400 a day.

Once the Bush tax cuts end, we're going to save a trillion dollars. This is a filthy-rich country and there is a lot of wealth here, but we lock it up. There's money everywhere, and not just in the tax loopholes or offshore accounts. What did Clinton figure out that we can't figure out for ourselves?

Even with this disparity, we're still the richest nation. This country isn't fucked yet. Solidarity Forever.

Juan_Bottom wrote:You attack anything specific about what I say and I will destroy your arguments with the wrath of an angry god and make you appear to be a drooling retard barely capable of clickety-clicking your keyboard into sentences that have structural form.

I don't care about your class warfare rhetoric. All you are doing is attempting to throw down one set of elites and replace them with another set of elites. And you don't even identify the right problem. The CEO pay is but a consequence of the debt based currency.

""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered".- Jefferson

Considering what you are railing against, you might want to reread that Jefferson quote a few more times until it finally sinks in.

You're like a doctor giving the flu patient a tissue instead of fighting the very virus that is causing the sickness.

Last edited by patches70 on Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Juan_Bottom wrote:You attack anything specific about what I say and I will destroy your arguments with the wrath of an angry god and make you appear to be a drooling retard barely capable of clickety-clicking your keyboard into sentences that have structural form.

I don't care about your class warfare rhetoric. All you are doing is attempting to throw down one set of elites and replace them with another set of elites. And you don't even identify the right problem. The CEO pay is but a consequence of the debt based currency.

""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered".- Jefferson

Considering what you are railing against, you might want to reread that Jefferson quote a few more times until it finally sinks in.

Your like a doctor giving the flu patient a tissue instead of fighting the very virus that is causing the sickness.

"You're"

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Funkyterrance wrote:The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

I was only using minimum wage as it's a mark that everyone can relate to. Let's just say low-income then if that is more satisfactory? Historically, low income individuals were generally able to cover their cost of living. Historically, meaning up until recently.Just like most macroeconomic issues, It's not something you are going to be able to nail down, you are going to have to use your better judgement and realize that it's just so.

So it's just a shorthand way of saying that things were better in the past. It's a neat shortcut, I suppose. Carry on.

No, that's an extreme oversimplification in your mind. I didn't even imply that. You are putting words in my mouth and projecting. It's just the facts, I haven't opined when was better/worse, just that it stands to reason that this is the issue at hand.

Last edited by Funkyterrance on Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Funkyterrance wrote:The arrow does indeed seem to be pointing at the dollar, not CEO's, etc.. Historically a minimum wage earner could at least cover his/her cost of living, meager as it may be. Today this is untrue.

I love that word "historically", it's so vague. Do you mean since the implementation of a minimum wage?

I was only using minimum wage as it's a mark that everyone can relate to. Let's just say low-income then if that is more satisfactory? Historically, low income individuals were generally able to cover their cost of living. Historically, meaning up until recently.Just like most macroeconomic issues, It's not something you are going to be able to nail down, you are going to have to use your better judgement and realize that it's just so.

So it's just a shorthand way of saying that things were better in the past. It's a neat shortcut, I suppose. Carry on.

No, that's an extreme oversimplification which you wrote, I didn't even imply that. You are putting words in my mouth and projecting. It's just the facts, I haven't opined when was better/worse.

Historically, I disagree.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Juan_Bottom wrote:If you want to blame someone, why not blame the rich people who are pathologically hoarding so much cash that they are impoverishing everyone else? Or how about the politicians who's retarded views appear to mirror everyone else's in that the Wal*Mart babies are smart business people who deserve extra tax breaks while their workers make so little they are on the dole and forced to shop at Wal*mart. While CEO compensation rose by 727% between '78 and 2011, ours rose just 5.7%. They got all that extra money by not giving you your share. This elite class of citizens was not born to be your lords and ladies. Nobody was born spurred and nobody was born saddled. You want to blame the a system that spends $168 a day per poor person for why this country is fucked?Well, I'm going to point one finger at you and one finger at the guy who makes $16,400 a day.

Once the Bush tax cuts end, we're going to save a trillion dollars. This is a filthy-rich country and there is a lot of wealth here, but we lock it up. There's money everywhere, and not just in the tax loopholes or offshore accounts. What did Clinton figure out that we can't figure out for ourselves?Even with this disparity, we're still the richest nation. This country isn't fucked yet. Solidarity Forever.

Ok, let's look at it from this perspective:Do you personally buy any products/services from corporate owned companies? Isn't it really consumer buying habits then that are to blame? If nobody bought products/services from corporate owned enterprises there would be no big fat CEO's grubbing all the profits. The low prices gained by the corporate structure are what's attractive to people but then they don't like the consequences of their support. Why is it so easily forgotten that the two things are connected?

Night Strike wrote:Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?

Night Strike wrote:Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?

If you buy anything from the corporate structure you are part of the problem, AKA wrongdoer.

Night Strike wrote:Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?

Why not? He can distribute his entire salary to the workers while only keeping his "living wage". He can be a role model for other CEOs instead of just another greedy person demanding the government take it away from them.

Night Strike wrote:Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?

Why not? He can distribute his entire salary to the workers while only keeping his "living wage". He can be a role model for other CEOs instead of just another greedy person demanding the government take it away from them.

This is not a method by which one can reform the system. Other CEOs will not follow the lead of a role model; if they would, Warren Buffet would already have convinced all wealthy people that they should pay more in taxes.

Night Strike wrote:Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?

Why not? He can distribute his entire salary to the workers while only keeping his "living wage". He can be a role model for other CEOs instead of just another greedy person demanding the government take it away from them.

This is not a method by which one can reform the system. Other CEOs will not follow the lead of a role model; if they would, Warren Buffet would already have convinced all wealthy people that they should pay more in taxes.

warren buffett is giving away most of his wealth to charity... and if more CEO's shared buffett's views, i'm sure it would have a bigger effect on national politics.

that being said, it's way harder for someone like juan to become a CEO as opposed to someone who was born rich, so it's pretty dumb to blame juan for that.

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

Night Strike wrote:Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?

Why not? He can distribute his entire salary to the workers while only keeping his "living wage". He can be a role model for other CEOs instead of just another greedy person demanding the government take it away from them.

This is not a method by which one can reform the system. Other CEOs will not follow the lead of a role model; if they would, Warren Buffet would already have convinced all wealthy people that they should pay more in taxes.

Maybe if Warren Buffet actually wrote checks to the government instead of demanding higher income taxes (that he won't be paying), he might actually be credible.

Night Strike wrote:Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?

Why not? He can distribute his entire salary to the workers while only keeping his "living wage". He can be a role model for other CEOs instead of just another greedy person demanding the government take it away from them.

This is not a method by which one can reform the system. Other CEOs will not follow the lead of a role model; if they would, Warren Buffet would already have convinced all wealthy people that they should pay more in taxes.

Maybe if Warren Buffet actually wrote checks to the government instead of demanding higher income taxes (that he won't be paying), he might actually be credible.

Warren Buffet has pledged to give a very large portion of his income to charity. I think he has proven that he is willing to sacrifice his personal wealth for the betterment of society. The same cannot be said for many others.

Metsfanmax wrote:Warren Buffet has pledged to give a very large portion of his income to charity. I think he has proven that he is willing to sacrifice his personal wealth for the betterment of society. The same cannot be said for many others.

How do you know how much every single CEO donates to charity? Heck, you all reamed on Mitt Romney, a former CEO, even though he gave something like 20% of his income to charity. And why are you all praising Buffet's claims of donating to charities when you're also using this thread to demand the government take the money away from the rich, which means they won't be donating it to charities? And why do you praise Buffet for giving to charity while demanding others pay more to the government when he doesn't give more money to the government on his own? Furthermore, why are you comparing a BILLIONAIRE investor to the owner of a small business (since they're both considered the same level of rich under Obama)?

Lootifer wrote:Firstly I wasnt supplying a solution; just identifying what I think the problem is.

You think this is the problem?-

Lootifer wrote: I would identify the fundamental problem as being that the person earning 60k is not being paid enough

I don't think that's right at all. It's not that the person isn't earning enough, it's that the currency they are earning is not valuable enough.

There was a time when earning $60K a year would be more than enough.We think it's only natural that prices rise. That's not true at all, it's anything but natural. When you look prices of things in another medium, a more stable medium, you see that prices of things has dropped dramatically.

Thirty years ago a dollar would have bought you eight loaves of bread. But look at it in another medium of exchange, gold. Thirty years ago an ounce of could would have bought you a hundred loaves of bread where the dollar would have bought you only eight.

Today, a dollar won't even buy you a loaf of bread, not even half a load. But how much bread could you buy with an ounce of gold today? Around 600 loaves.

When you look at prices in a stable medium of exchange, such as gold which is about the most stable medium of exchange there has ever been in the history of mankind, you can clearly see that the prices of things as gone down, a lot!You can compare this with anything that can be bought or sold. And results are always the same.

But the dollar, what we use every day, what we are paid in, it's value only gets worse and worse.

Therefore you should be able to clearly see that this isn't that people aren't getting enough money, it's that what they are getting for their labors is worth less and less and less. It's the currency itself that is the problem. It is the central problem that has to be corrected first before there is ever going to be a chance to correct anything else.

Lootifer wrote:And my premise is that to pay for the welfare programmes the government is not printing money to do so.

Where did the bills that are in your wallet come from?

LOL

Absolutely the government is printing money, how else did it come into existence in the first place if it were not printed or created some way out of thin air?Our currency isn't tied to gold or any other commodity. Ctrl P. That's where money comes from. And it all has to be paid back, every single penny. And when it's all paid back, every dime ever created, we'd still owe the interest, which we would not be able to pay because the currency to pay the interest is never printed. Only what is borrowed is printed. To pay the interest we must borrow more so that more can be printed.

Don't you see that?

And every newly printed dollar makes every other dollar already in existence worth less. And it is impossible to not keep printing because of the very nature of how currency comes into existence. It's borrowed (thus the term "debt based").

And this leads to problems, like the ever increasing need for more and more welfare funds, as an example. Which only contributes more to the problem. It is unsustainable and in reality is only "kicking the can" down the road. Until such time comes (and it always comes) that the "can" can't be kicked down the road any longer. Then it gets interesting. And by interesting, I mean for many people it will be quite horrible, namely poor bastards who are on welfare, for one.....

I want to reply to this btw, rest assured im not dodging. I am just, ironically enough, busy as f*ck at work lol.

Most of the money Romney has donated to "charity" has really just been to support his church, which I do not consider to be charitable giving of the type that benefits society as a whole. Apparently if you're Mitt Romney, you essentially only deserve his support if you believe in the same religious views he does.

And why are you all praising Buffet's claims of donating to charities when you're also using this thread to demand the government take the money away from the rich, which means they won't be donating it to charities?

Because charitable giving is no longer needed if people contribute to that cause as a result of their taxation.

And why do you praise Buffet for giving to charity while demanding others pay more to the government when he doesn't give more money to the government on his own?

As I already said, because Buffett writing a check to the government wouldn't actually cause systematic change. Being an advocate so that he and everyone else of his level of wealth is forced to pay more in taxes, would result in change.

Furthermore, why are you comparing a BILLIONAIRE investor to the owner of a small business (since they're both considered the same level of rich under Obama)?

Metsfanmax wrote:As I already said, because Buffett writing a check to the government wouldn't actually cause systematic change. Being an advocate so that he and everyone else of his level of wealth is forced to pay more in taxes, would result in change.

For what its worth, you and I want systemic change not systematic change

Quick question - If we raised the minimum wage to $9.80 an hour, which the Democrats proposed earlier this year, would that help a lot or not help at all?

Let's see. Assuming 8 hour work day and 5 day work week, that's $78.40 a day, $392 a week, and $20,384 a year. That can't be enough to live on. I wonder why the Democrats want to raise the minimum wage?

By the way, for whatever it's worth, I'm all for raising the minimum wage if it's an actual, for realsies, increase that actually affects more people instead of this fake crap to make sure union carpenters can make $98 an hour instead of $80 an hour.

Metsfanmax wrote:As I already said, because Buffett writing a check to the government wouldn't actually cause systematic change. Being an advocate so that he and everyone else of his level of wealth is forced to pay more in taxes, would result in change.

For what its worth, you and I want systemic change not systematic change

Systematic change is the word I intended to use, as it accurately expresses what I was trying to say. If there's any real difference between the words, in this context, it might be that systemic change would be something like the nature of government fundamentally changing. On the other hand, I was expressing the hope that we would have a systematic change to a state where donation to charitable causes is handled by the government in an ordered manner rather than on an ad hoc basis by individual giving.

Night Strike wrote:Juan, if you're so jealous of CEO pay, why don't you do something with yourself and become a CEO instead of demanding that the government take money away from others and hand it to you?

Because people who think something is wrong generally don't want to become the wrongdoers?

Why not? He can distribute his entire salary to the workers while only keeping his "living wage". He can be a role model for other CEOs instead of just another greedy person demanding the government take it away from them.

This is not a method by which one can reform the system. Other CEOs will not follow the lead of a role model; if they would, Warren Buffet would already have convinced all wealthy people that they should pay more in taxes.

Maybe other people will start paying more in taxes when those people who are obsessed with other people's money start leading by example. There is nothing courageous or compassionate about lust for other people's money, and is actually probably the greediest thing in our world currently.

Phatscotty wrote:Maybe other people will start paying more in taxes when those people who are obsessed with other people's money start leading by example. There is nothing courageous or compassionate about lust for other people's money, and is actually probably the greediest thing in our world currently

You think that wanting to redistribute other peoples' money for societal good is more greedy than building up a large pile of cash so that you can buy nicer toys?